Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 20:14:02 01/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2003 at 15:40:00, Sandro Necchi wrote: At world champs 1999 when programs played GMs after the world champ which shredder won, i was following the german comments. In german during the GM versus computer games especially a certain chessbase paid commentator was saying each 90 seconds: "i really believe that fritz was better this world championship than shredder. Fritz earned to win it, it is much better". Somehow i get impression i am hearing the same type of marketing below here from you. And that in the year 2003. Shame on you! >On January 29, 2003 at 11:45:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On January 28, 2003 at 15:11:42, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 2003 at 08:18:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On January 28, 2003 at 01:10:48, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 27, 2003 at 19:22:19, andrew tanner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There seems to be no basis for this belief other than DEEP BLUE and it's >>>>>>legacy, which is a legacy of "the sky is falling" type of despair. If computers >>>>>>continue to improve tactically, then GM's will learn from them and also improve >>>>>>tactically. Man has always improved in everything he does. Accelerated rates of >>>>>>improvement for chess computers with faster hardware or knowldege doesn't >>>>>>automatically translate into wins against strong GM's. Bring it on. >>>>>> >>>>>> -A.T. >>>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>I do not agree. >>>>> >>>>>I think with the right approch and a fast hardware Shredder can win the match >>>>>also now if we were allowed to. >>>>> >>>>>Sandro Necchi >>>> >>>>Nonsense of course. Shredder is a too passive program for that. >>> >>>Well, cannot give info, but this is not true anymore... >> >>This is a contradiction. > >Well, you do make statements on what you know. >I do on what you don't know. > > >>I conclude falsum out of that. I conclude >>out of that that it is too passive even when compared to DIEP, Fritz, >>Yace, Gandalf, SOS, Pharaon, to perform at equal strength against humans. > >Well, it is not necessary true that to win against a human player it is >necessary to play aggressive. >It depends how strong you play the way you play. >Very important is which openings you play and how good are the positions that >arise from those openings for the program. I mean if the computer will >understand them and play correctly. >This is the real challenge as if the opening is not good enough for the program >it would be enough that the opponent play a weaker move to put the program our >of book and in trouble. > >> >>Has nothing to do with how good shredder is in world champs. > >Of course. > >>It sits and waits there and opponents f' themselves and Shredder profits ( >>junior sits too, but junior doing it in a way more active but anti positional >>way). >> >>Shredder is easy to beat for a titled player who doesn't blunder away material. > > >Well, what happen to the swiss team than? > >> >>The others are a nightmare to beat because they play more active. > > >If you kill them in the opening phase it will be a nighmare for the program... > >>Crafty lacks loads of knowledge, but it is at least also playing *active*; it >is in that respect also way harder to beat for a human than Shredder. > > >I do not agree. Sorry. > >> >>>With the std. passive style I would agree with you but there are other way to >>>change things... >>>I have been studying this for years and I was with MChess the first one to beat >>>a GM at long time controls. 6 games (GM Igor Efimov). >>>It was M-Chess 6.5 running on a 200 MHz Pentium MMX >>> >>>Believe, I know what I am saying. >> >>M-chess is not comparable with Shredder. Mchess is based upon things like >>mobility. Shredder isn't. If it is inside shredder mobility, it will be >having a >minor score. > >Yes, this is true, but it is also true that Shredder is stronger. > >>Not saying that this is worse from objective viewpoint, but for >>sure is having less of an impact against humans. > >I do not agree. I think Shredder can do quite well. >Since you seems to know everything, do you know what GMs Shredder M3 is? > >I am referring to this program on my statements. > >You do not? > >> >>M-Chess didn't have that problem, though of course software from around 96-97 >is completely outdated by todays standards. > > >OK, but running on a slow hardware (Pentium 166 / Pentium Pro. 200 MMX) with a >special book prepared by me scored 2589 Elo points against human players out of >19 games at long time controls (matches with games 1h time or longer for each >player). > >> >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Vincent >>> >>>Best regards >>>Sandro > >Best regards >Sandro
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.